Check out HRS 663-1.6 Duty to Assist

Section 663-1.6 - Duty to assist person at the scene of a crime who knows that a victim of the crime is suffering from serious physical harm shall obtain or attempt to obtain aid from law enforcement or medical personnel if the person can do so without danger or peril to any person. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
(b) Any person who provides reasonable assistance in compliance with subsection (a) shall not be liable in civil damages unless the person's acts constitute gross negligence or wanton acts or omissions, or unless the person receives or expects to receive remuneration. Nothing contained in this subsection shall alter existing law with respect to tort liability of a physician licensed to practice under the laws of this State committed in the ordinary course of the physician's practice.
(c) Any person who fails to provide reasonable assistance in compliance with subsection (a) shall not be liable for any civil damages.
HRS § 663-1.6

L 1984, c 140, §1
Section imposes on the perpetrator of a crime a duty to obtain necessary medical aid for the victim.73 Haw. 236, 831 P.2d 924. Where evidence that child was a victim of battered child syndrome was relevant to show that child's death was not an accident, but the result of an intentional, knowing or reckless criminal act, giving rise to a duty on defendant's part to obtain medical care for child pursuant to this section, trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony that child was a victim of battered child syndrome.101 Haw. 332,68 P.3d 606. Applicable to the perpetrator of a crime. 8 H. App. 506, 810 P.2d 672.

Wild. You have a duty to call EMS and/or the cops if you witness someone suffering from severe bodily injury.
Even the perp has a duty to call them after he beats/stabs/shoots you. Good luck with that. 
Otherwise wise petty misdemeanor tack on charge. I’m sure they’re concerned about that.

Other than the modified “Castle Doctrine” what are the standards for use of deadly force outside the home premises under HRS ?

Looks like you can but still have a duty to retreat if possible outside the home.

§703-304  Use of force in self-protection.  (1)  Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
     (2)  The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.
     (3)  Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action.
     (4)  The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
     (a)  To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
     (b)  To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:
          (i)  The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; or
         (ii)  The actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.
     (5)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
     (a)  The actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
     (b)  The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
          (i)  The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
         (ii)  A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties, or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform his duty, effect the arrest, or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.
     (6)  The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; ree L 1975, c 163, §3; am L 2001, c 91, §4]

I am not a lawyer.

Unlike the use of a Taser, one cannot use deadly force to protect another.

This is the wilder part:

"(5)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
     (b)  The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:"

So if you state " I used a (enter deadly force object) because he was robbing me". Then you're screwed because you have to surrender said item upon demand. Vs. "I used a (enter deadly force object) because I thought he was going to kill me". Articulation is key.

Added Bonus Info:

In NV, where you can open carry without a permit and CCW's are issued like gravy, "belief" isn't in their use of deadly force law. So HI actually has more leeway with the use of deadly force. Which is why I'm surprised that smoke shop Nguyen hasn't been charged/arrested.

Unlike the use of a Taser, one cannot use deadly force to protect another.

This is the wilder part:

"(5)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
     (b)  The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:"

So if you state " I used a (enter deadly force object) because he was robbing me". Then you're screwed because you have to surrender said item upon demand. Vs. "I used a (enter deadly force object) because I thought he was going to kill me". Articulation is key.

Added Bonus Info:

In NV, where you can open carry without a permit and CCW's are issued like gravy, "belief" isn't in their use of deadly force law. So HI actually has more leeway with the use of deadly force. Which is why I'm surprised that smoke shop Nguyen hasn't been charged/arrested.

Nope.  If you're being robbed, then the person robbing you can make no claim of right to your property.

From the HRS commentary on this statute:

Where a person offers deadly force unless another surrenders property to him, and claims a
right to the property, it is certainly sound policy to save life and litigate the disputed ownership
in court.   Naturally, however, this rule does not apply in cases of robbery, where the assailant
can make no claim of right, and it is the purpose of the Code to permit deadly resistance
to robbery if the conditions of subsection (2) are met.

(2)  The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force
is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible
sodomy.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm

While you still have a requirement to articulate you were in fear for your life and safety, you do not have to give up your property to a robber in order to try and defuse the attack.

Nope.  If you're being robbed, then the person robbing you can make no claim of right to your property.

From the HRS commentary on this statute:https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm

While you still have a requirement to articulate you were in fear for your life and safety, you do not have to give up your property to a robber in order to try and defuse the attack.

Regarding your first HRS commentary quote.

From the HRS commentary on this statute:
Quote
Where a person offers deadly force unless another surrenders property to him, and claims a
right to the property, it is certainly sound policy to save life and litigate the disputed ownership
in court.   Naturally, however, this rule does not apply in cases of robbery, where the assailant
can make no claim of right, and it is the purpose of the Code to permit deadly resistance
to robbery if the conditions of subsection (2) are met.

is the next sentence:

“Finally, deadly force is impermissible if the actor can avoid using it by complying with a demand that he refrain from any action which he has no duty to take.  Again, the policy of saving life seems more insistent than the right of the individual to complete freedom of action.”

Not sure what it means.

Hope this is not derailing the thread but all you boys planning to conceal carry in Hawaii better know the conditions in which you can use it.
Lengthy legal battles.
I wanted to conceal carry but can’t pass the test with my snubby, sure as hell not weak handed and can’t carry it in my pocket.
Really just wanted to protect myself and loved ones against knives and dire straights.

Call me naive but I fail to see why one has to comply with all this "policy of saving life" BS double speak legalese crap when it is clear that the f**kn low-life is hell bent on either killing or inflicting life long injuries to you or your loved one(s).

You cannot do this.  You cannot do that.  But if you do this, you can also do that, except when you do this before you do that.  WTF??!!

Whose side are you on, you piece of shiite prosecutors, politicians, and goons of HPD?

Submitted my written testimony via email

Cliff Note: We the State of Hawaii do not uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike the use of a Taser, one cannot use deadly force to protect another.

This is the wilder part:

"(5)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
     (b)  The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:"

So if you state " I used a (enter deadly force object) because he was robbing me". Then you're screwed because you have to surrender said item upon demand. Vs. "I used a (enter deadly force object) because I thought he was going to kill me". Articulation is key.

Added Bonus Info:

In NV, where you can open carry without a permit and CCW's are issued like gravy, "belief" isn't in their use of deadly force law. So HI actually has more leeway with the use of deadly force. Which is why I'm surprised that smoke shop Nguyen hasn't been charged/arrested.

The law doesn't state that deadly force cannot be used to protect another, it just doesn't mention deadly force (703-305)

I haven't yet been able to find anything clearly defining what it means to "assert a claim of right to" but as I read it I think that covers disputes in ownership and things like repossession, not general theft by force

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF HAWAII FIREARM CERTIFICATION
     FOR QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
…
(25) The target used for a shooting course shall be a B-21 silhouette target or any target approved by the attorney general. A sample of the B-21 silhouette target is attached at page 13.
…
(27) To pass the shooting course, the applicant must fire exactly forty-three rounds, and each of the forty-three rounds must strike the black silhouette area of the target, and no less than forty rounds must strike within the 5X scoring area ("coke bottle"). If any round strikes outside of the black silhouette area, the applicant shall fail the course.

https://ag.hawaii.gov/cjd/files/2014/11/LEOSA-Interim-Management-Regulation-102814.pdf

Nothing about weak side hand and target looks a lot bigger than 8x11. Maybe 35x45 ? (Don’t know about coke bottle area though)
https://www.amazon.com/B21-Target-Police-Silhouette-Disable/dp/B07KTSHD1Y
Couldn’t find anything about qualify with gun they are gonna carry. Nor inside the waist band draw.

I truly believe over half the cops can’t qualify for CCW under proposed rules.

Call me naive but I fail to see why one has to comply with all this "policy of saving life" BS double speak legalese crap when it is clear that the f**kn low-life is hell bent on either killing or inflicting life long injuries to you or your loved one(s).

You cannot do this.  You cannot do that.  But if you do this, you can also do that, except when you do this before you do that.  WTF??!!

Whose side are you on, you piece of shiite prosecutors, politicians, and goons of HPD?

Yeah, when you're in the moment, and it's your ass on the line, you are going to make the decisions that YOU think will best serve YOU.  It's difficult for most people to pull a trigger on another person, so all these "codified lessons" contained in the law are superfluous.  It's all subjective, but it makes the lawmakers "feel better" if they include their personal morals and advice along side the parts that make it legal to take a life.

When OK passed a castle doctrine bill the first time in the 1980s they aired a bunch of PSAs during the news casts.  The PSAa included basically "FAQs" on when it's legal to use lethal force, when it absolutely is not, and what the consequences may be if a jury doesn't agree with your rationale.

For example, you hear your pickup start up in the front yard,  You run outside in time to see someone driving away with it.  Legally, you can't shoot them, because they are fleeing and not posing a threat to you or anyone else at the house.    However, if you make it outside in time to see who's stealing your truck, and the thief tries to run you over (possibly to eliminate a witness), you're allowed to protect yourself with lethal force.

That's just one example.  They had a bunch of PSAs like that, many based on questions the news station received from viewers.

The biggest problem with Hawaii is, they can't tell you whether anything you do is legal or not until after it's too late.  The AG only gives advice to the state agencies.  The public that pays all their salaries and operations budgets are told to go hire a lawyer.

We are going to see the State apply a very very broad interpretation to Justice Kavannaugh's concurring opinion that allows the states to use objective licensing requirements. There isnt much time to submit public testimony. Much of the anti's testimony has been written years ago and is ready for state cronies to cut and paste. Rhoades, Lee, and Branco already have outside organizations providing one-sided research to oppose and limit ccw. Fortunately, I have not heard of any taser incidents as of late. If there are any, those will be used to show how citizens cant even be trusted with nonlethal. Focus, submit coherent testimony and protect your rights.

STATE OF HAWAII FIREARM CERTIFICATION
     FOR QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Nothing about weak side hand and target looks a lot bigger than 8x11. Maybe 35x45 ? (Don’t know about coke bottle area though)
B-21 Target measures 22.5" x 35"

The law doesn't state that deadly force cannot be used to protect another, it just doesn't mention deadly force (703-305)
 

See   §703-304  as well as §703-308.
But you knew that already.

Another reason.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=47295.msg433215#msg433215

See   §703-304  as well as §703-308.
But you knew that already.

The issue with this target is that Kokohead doesn't allow it. So they would have to change their rules.  And since the rules for the chief are vague, will HPD accept this type of target? What I see happening is that since as it currently is, there is no specific target mentioned, instructors use what ever they want and HPD makes up their rules at the desk.  You know, it's now like they have a history of doing that with other issues.

What is mentioned is that the written test must be approved by HPD for it to count, as in the instructor has to submit the format and once approved, they can use it for their classes.

This state's legal system has some seriously messed up views on self defense.

Defense attorney Megan Kau said the law states that a person can use deadly force to defend him
or herself from deadly force if they believe it’s reasonably necessary.

“In other words, you can’t bring a knife to a fistfight, you can’t bring a gun to a knife fight, you have
to use the same force the person is using against you in order for you to be justified,” she said.

https://www.khon2.com/news/hawaiis-law-on-using-deadly-force/

That, my friends, is complete and utter stupidity.  Do Cops leave their service weapons holstered and only draw knives if the person they are subduing is "only" armed with a knife?

These people watch too many Cop TV shows and movies.

In a contest using deadly force (including knives), there is no such thing as a second place winner.  Either you win, or you lose. 

These "rules" are based on a desire to protect the criminals, not the victims.

This state's legal system has some seriously messed up views on self defense.
https://www.khon2.com/news/hawaiis-law-on-using-deadly-force/

That, my friends, is complete and utter stupidity.  Do Cops leave their service weapons holstered and only draw knives if the person they are subduing is "only" armed with a knife?

These people watch too many Cop TV shows and movies.

In a contest using deadly force (including knives), there is no such thing as a second place winner.  Either you win, or you lose. 

These "rules" are based on a desire to protect the criminals, not the victims.

She got flamed for this when she made the statement. Which makes me wonder how good of a  defense atty she is.  Like when Matayoshi talks about how to buy a gun on "What's the Law" segment on the news and she was wrong too. We know Matayoshi is anti 2a, and Kau is more pro 2A as she showed up to a few of our HIFICO gatherings. But I kept my distance and was careful what I said around her.

She got flamed for this when she made the statement. Which makes me wonder how good of a  defense atty she is.  Like when Matayoshi talks about how to buy a gun on "What's the Law" segment on the news and she was wrong too. We know Matayoshi is anti 2a, and Kau is more pro 2A as she showed up to a few of our HIFICO gatherings. But I kept my distance and was careful what I said around her.

Maybe she was publicly "flamed," but the fact remains this is how she was taught, understands and applies the statutes on self defense.  She's not a "layman." She's a trained and experienced DEFENSE ATTORNEY.

If she's dumb enough to make her backward positions on SD public, think about all the others who think the same and are smart enough to keep their mouths shut outside the courtroom.

This is one reason I theorize the AG doesn't interpret the law for anyone outside of government or the courtroom:  If they actually made their ridiculous legal opinions known to the public, they'd be run out of office lickety-split!

The Kauai Police Department's new concealed carry permitting and application process:
https://www.kitv.com/news/local/kauai-police-issue-revised-permitting-and-application-process-for-gun-licenses/article_1693a246-2fae-11ed-bc63-bb524031ac57.html

-Copy of current Firearm Registration for firearm to be carried.

-Copy of signed Firearms Proficiency Test including scores (test must be dated within 90 days of application):

-Firearms Proficiency Test must be taken with the firearm to be carried (Minimum Qualification course of fire and proficiency standards located online at KPD’s website);
Handgun Qualification/ Proficiency Course Of Fire - MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
https://www.kauai.gov/Portals/0/KPD/Firearms/KPD%20Supplement%20To%20Application%20For%20License%20To%20Carry%20Firearm%20Concealed-Unconcealed-%20Handgun%20Qualification-%20Proficiency%20Course%20Of%20Fire.pdf 
There is one weak hand string:  10 yards, 6 rounds, no time constraints, standing, standing (barricade WEAK HAND)

-Firearms Proficiency Test must be administered by a state-certified or National Rifle Association Firearms Instructor of the Applicant’s choosing (include instructor certification); and-
Signed Shooting Proficiency Test results must include shooting scores – pass/fail only is not sufficient.

-Two passport-sized, front-facing color photographs of Applicant (taken within past 30 days).

-For applications needed for employment purposes, please complete the notarized Private Security Employer Certification Application.


WHAT ARE HPD'S REQUIREMENTS? WHY IS A PUBLIC HEARING NEEDED WHEN KAUAI ALREADY HAS THIS INFO?

The issue with this target is that Kokohead doesn't allow it. So they would have to change their rules.  And since the rules for the chief are vague, will HPD accept this type of target? What I see happening is that since as it currently is, there is no specific target mentioned, instructors use what ever they want and HPD makes up their rules at the desk.  You know, it's now like they have a history of doing that with other issues.
What is mentioned is that the written test must be approved by HPD for it to count, as in the instructor has to submit the format and once approved, they can use it for their classes.

Adapt, Improvise, overcome

Black out all but the scoring portion.
Draw or copy similar image
Get literal

The Kauai Police Department's new concealed carry permitting and application process:
https://www.kitv.com/news/local/kauai-police-issue-revised-permitting-and-application-process-for-gun-licenses/article_1693a246-2fae-11ed-bc63-bb524031ac57.html

-Copy of current Firearm Registration for firearm to be carried.

-Copy of signed Firearms Proficiency Test including scores (test must be dated within 90 days of application):

-Firearms Proficiency Test must be taken with the firearm to be carried (Minimum Qualification course of fire and proficiency standards located online at KPD’s website);
Handgun Qualification/ Proficiency Course Of Fire - MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
https://www.kauai.gov/Portals/0/KPD/Firearms/KPD%20Supplement%20To%20Application%20For%20License%20To%20Carry%20Firearm%20Concealed-Unconcealed-%20Handgun%20Qualification-%20Proficiency%20Course%20Of%20Fire.pdf 
There is one weak hand string:  10 yards, 6 rounds, no time constraints, standing, standing (barricade WEAK HAND)

-Firearms Proficiency Test must be administered by a state-certified or National Rifle Association Firearms Instructor of the Applicant’s choosing (include instructor certification); and-
Signed Shooting Proficiency Test results must include shooting scores – pass/fail only is not sufficient.

-Two passport-sized, front-facing color photographs of Applicant (taken within past 30 days).

-For applications needed for employment purposes, please complete the notarized Private Security Employer Certification Application.


WHAT ARE HPD'S REQUIREMENTS? WHY IS A PUBLIC HEARING NEEDED WHEN KAUAI ALREADY HAS THIS INFO?

The news link was posted 2 hrs ago, but the firearm qual remains the same. Which does have time limits to it. So if anyone purse or bag carries, you won't be able to/be very difficult to pass as you only have 3 seconds to finish the 1st COF. Which is 2rds at 3 yards and 3 seconds. Then 2nd COF is 7 yards, 1 rd at 2 seconds.  A decent time for IWB draw and fire is 1.5 seconds. So to remove the gun from a bag and fire and get a good score is much more difficult.

And that intrusive liability wiaver still stands. "In order to permit KPD to make a thorough investigation of my background, family, mental health, and othe relevant info...I release from liability and proise to hold harmless from any liability under all possible legal causes of action".

Adapt, Improvise, overcome

Black out all but the scoring portion.
Draw or copy similar image
Get literal

Hahahahha, that's a good one. Funny but not funny, cause we will probably have to use this.